Regardless of whether BTC is classified as a currency or not, the exchanges accept and hold deposits of real currency for their clients. In many countries, that puts them firmly in the category of providing financial services and thus requiring a licence as either a deposit-taker, a money transmitter, or both.

+1And it is not even be a bad thing. Bitcoin is in dire need of some trusted service companies, some exchanges or wallet services or whatever being regulated and audited I would see like a positive step, not a negative one. As the saying goes, trust but verify. Also keep in mind bitcoin doesnt depend on such oversight, and you are free to use whatever company you want, licensed or not. But Mt Gox getting a license would inspire trust among many, I really cant see how that would be a bad thing.

If PayPal can meet all of the legal requirements, and they did it well before the eBay investment, then surely a company today can achieve the same result. If an Exchange focuses its efforts on getting all the legal requirements in every country they operate, then they will be THE premium exchange that everyone will use.

If PayPal can meet all of the legal requirements, and they did it well before the eBay investment, then surely a company today can achieve the same result. If an Exchange focuses its efforts on getting all the legal requirements in every country they operate, then they will be THE premium exchange that everyone will use.

yes, but afaik it will cost more or less 200000 dollars to get the same status as paypal

If PayPal can meet all of the legal requirements, and they did it well before the eBay investment, then surely a company today can achieve the same result. If an Exchange focuses its efforts on getting all the legal requirements in every country they operate, then they will be THE premium exchange that everyone will use.

yes, but afaik it will cost more or less 200000 dollars to get the same status as paypal

If that $200,000 includes the posting of a performance bond, then it's a trivial amount compared to the total amount of funds passing through a major exchange.

Where I think it's difficult for MtGox is that they probably hadn't planned on this level of growth happening so fast when Mark took over the business from Jed. Both their client base and the amount of money they were dealing with grew very rapidly and they seem to have been playing catch up ever since. They probably weren't capitalised sufficiently to cope with that rapid expansion because they didn't expect it to happen within months.

They may have been better to stick to one market until things stabilised rather than trying to establish a presence in multiple continents - Paypal didn't launch its Australian service until 2005 and even so they ran into legal issues which mean they operate a little differently here than elsewhere in the world - but hindsight is 20/20 and MtGox tried to be all things to all people. This may make them vulnerable if they run into issues in several locations at the same time - and this is the kind of risk which solid, professional business plans take into account.

New exchanges can learn from the MtGox experience - and they should. A viable exchange needs more than just efficient software to process transaction. It needs some serious start up capital, and hopefully we've reached the point where new players who don't have those financial resources will fail quickly.

All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.

True, governments (i.e. Central Banks) do not tolerate competition for what they see as their power. Money is the primary power mechanism for controlling people. Real competition for power in the form of gold, bitcoin, or some other currency as money will not be tolerated. My best case scenario is that bitcoin continues to get bad press articles, while slowly increasing in usage and value under the radar (something like gold is doing now). Then, longer term, something happens to diminish the monetary control mechanism (like a sovereign debt collapse in the G8 countries) and the governments will not have the power to fight the distributed bitcoin currency.

Hmm. Aren't central banks simply created with the intention of keeping inflation under x%? I know the job of the ECB is to keep inflation around 2%. That's what it says in its charter, and - as far as I know - what Jean-Claude Trichet has been doing, and Mario Draghi will be doing now. How do they have power over anything if they're just created to keep inflation constant?

I know the Federal Reserve is supposed to both keep inflation around 2% and (as opposed to ECB) also keep employment rates relatively low. So the Federal Reserve acts a bit differently from ECB because of this difference in purpose.

But how can these banks benefit some tiny elite of people? I assume they're not able to print money to themselves... It's not like they have a private, endless ATM at their disposal (as far as I know).

Hmm. Aren't central banks simply created with the intention of keeping inflation under x%? I know the job of the ECB is to keep inflation around 2%. That's what it says in its charter, and - as far as I know - what Jean-Claude Trichet has been doing, and Mario Draghi will be doing now. How do they have power over anything if they're just created to keep inflation constant?

I know the Federal Reserve is supposed to both keep inflation around 2% and (as opposed to ECB) also keep employment rates relatively low. So the Federal Reserve acts a bit differently from ECB because of this difference in purpose.

But how can these banks benefit some tiny elite of people? I assume they're not able to print money to themselves... It's not like they have a private, endless ATM at their disposal (as far as I know).

These banks are private entities with private shareholders. They don't disclose their inner-workings and tend to print money towards other interests. The last Federal Reserve audit disclosed over 16 Trillion dollars in secret loans to various companies.

These banks are private entities with private shareholders. They don't disclose their inner-workings and tend to print money towards other interests. The last Federal Reserve audit disclosed over 16 Trillion dollars in secret loans to various companies.

I admire your attempt to educate the people on this forum as to how the world works, but I often wonder if it's worth it. The world is so full of know-it-alls and this forum seems to have more than its share. The whole world is now waking up to the realities of central banking crime and their response is now taking shape. Those who don't know the first thing about anything, but think otherwise, may not be very relevant except to remain confident that they know exactly everything yet see only that which agrees with their narrow view.

Hmm. Aren't central banks simply created with the intention of keeping inflation under x%? I know the job of the ECB is to keep inflation around 2%. That's what it says in its charter, and - as far as I know - what Jean-Claude Trichet has been doing, and Mario Draghi will be doing now. How do they have power over anything if they're just created to keep inflation constant?

I know the Federal Reserve is supposed to both keep inflation around 2% and (as opposed to ECB) also keep employment rates relatively low. So the Federal Reserve acts a bit differently from ECB because of this difference in purpose.

But how can these banks benefit some tiny elite of people? I assume they're not able to print money to themselves... It's not like they have a private, endless ATM at their disposal (as far as I know).

The Banque de France has an interesting history. It was a primarily private institution from 1800 to 1946 when it was nationalised. It was then privatised in 1993. It's certainly been under private influence for much greater periods than many other central banks.

These banks are private entities with private shareholders. They don't disclose their inner-workings and tend to print money towards other interests. The last Federal Reserve audit disclosed over 16 Trillion dollars in secret loans to various companies.

I admire your attempt to educate the people on this forum as to how the world works, but I often wonder if it's worth it. The world is so full of know-it-alls and this forum seems to have more than its share. The whole world is now waking up to the realities of central banking crime and their response is now taking shape. Those who don't know the first thing about anything, but think otherwise, may not be very relevant except to remain confident that they know exactly everything yet see only that which agrees with their narrow view.

If you're referring to me, I'm more than willing to learn. But I am not willing to just accept whatever you say as the truth. Just like I have no reason to accept the generally accepted view as the truth. I think I am able to hold both the views presented in this thread and the generally accepted view, and consider them without having to decide which one is "the truth".

I feel like I'm continuously learning, and I don't wish for that to ever stop. Which is why I don't assume to know the truth; because then I'd stop learning, since there would be no reason to learn if I thought I knew the truth.

If you're referring to me, I'm more than willing to learn. But I am not willing to just accept whatever you say as the truth. Just like I have no reason to accept the generally accepted view as the truth. I think I am able to hold both the views presented in this thread and the generally accepted view, and consider them without having to decide which one is "the truth".

I feel like I'm continuously learning, and I don't wish for that to ever stop. Which is why I don't assume to know the truth; because then I'd stop learning, since there would be no reason to learn if I thought I knew the truth.

No, runeks, I'm not talking about you. Your earnestness comes through. I'm talking about the ad hominem attacks and appeals to ridicule after the original post. Some people seem to have to criticize just to be heard.

But how can these banks benefit some tiny elite of people? I assume they're not able to print money to themselves... It's not like they have a private, endless ATM at their disposal (as far as I know).

The owners of the Federal Reserve are a secret. At one time this was known and it was a collection of wealthy, mostly jewish banking families from Europe and some European royalty. The name Rothschild is dominant, but names like Goldmann, Warburg, Rockefeller, Lazard, Sachs are included too. Under their system they lend money to nation states and receive interest on said loans. Key point: the loan is originated out of thin air which makes their business the most lucrative means ever known to gather up the wealth of the world.

The purpose of the Federal Reserve is to create inflation at a pace that won't be noticed by the public, upon whom it is a hidden tax. This explains why a dollar in 1913 is worth only three cents now.

What you have been seeing in Europe is the same process that was done to the "third world", where countries are induced to take on loans that are too big to repay. The solution offered to them will include "austerity" which means loss of jobs and a depressed economy (which makes everything worse). The assets of the country are bought up by multinationals (also owned by the elite families). The process is designed to impoverish and control the people of the country and leave the wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a tiny few, a modern form of feudalism. This is now being done to Greece, with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland to soon follow. Western Europe and the U.S. will fall to the same process in a couple of years.

The owners of the Federal Reserve are a secret. At one time this was known and it was a collection of wealthy, mostly jewish banking families from Europe and some European royalty. The name Rothschild is dominant, but names like Goldmann, Warburg, Rockefeller, Lazard, Sachs are included too. Under their system they lend money to nation states and receive interest on said loans. Key point: the loan is originated out of thin air which makes their business the most lucrative means ever known to gather up the wealth of the world.

I'm not sure where you get your information, but I don't think it's correct. The owners of the FED are the member banks (and I think I recently read that about 70% of all US banks are members of the FED). Their percentage ownership is proportional to their reserves (so the largest banks are the largest shareholders). Only US based banks are allowed to belong to the Federal Reserve system and hence hold an ownership position.

As best I can discern, the FED is able to transfer wealth in the following ways: 1) inflation of the money supply (this is the simplest and most obvious method...but probably not even the most profitable), 2) lending for bailout...when you hear about all those bailouts that were fully repaid, know that you are being lied to...a company is allowed to borrow money from the FED is able to use that capital to generate additional capital...that company is able to draw wealth from the rest of the economy that would have otherwise ended up elsewhere...so, while a company may have repaid a loan, there was a wealth transfer that occurred and that will not be repaid, 3) over paying for assets in the open market (the FED buying toubled MBSes is one instance of this), 4) Frontrunning...insiders that have fore knowledge of FED open market actions can make moves ahead of the FED and profit...this is a direct wealth transfer from other market participants, 5) financing gov't deficit...obviously the wealth is transferred to the government when this happens, but the FED is also transferring wealth to the banks (principally the primary dealers) as well when this occurs...this is because the FED doesn't buy treasuries directly from the gov't...it buys them from banks that buy them from the Treasury...the banks make a risk free spread in that transaction...this has even been openly discussed in the media...with some calling for the FED to simply buy Treasuries directly from the Treasury Dept...so far I don't think that has happened (not surprising why). I'm sure there are many more mechanisms employed by the FED.